Farmer v Martin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 1828 |
| Date | 27 February 1828 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 876
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Appointment.
876 FARMER V. MARTIN 8 SIM. S02. [502] farmer v. martin. Feb. 27, 1828. Appointment. A. having a power to appoint .10,000 amongst his younger children, appoints it to-them equally, reserving to himself a power of revocation as to 5000, which h& afterwards irrevocably appoints to E., one of the children, in consideration, of her baring agreed to apply part of it in payment of his debts. Afterwards A., by a. deed, to which E. is also a party, revokes, with her consent, the last appointment,, as to 2500, and, in pursuance of all powers, appoints that sum to a child by a second marriage, and confirms E.'s title to the remainder under the former appointment. Held, that the appointment of the 5000 being void, the appointment of the 2500 must also fail. By indentures of lease and release, of the llth and 12th of February 1771, estate* in the counties of Cambridge, Worcester and G-loucester, were conveyed to Thomas Martin the elder, for life, with remainder to his first and other sons, in tail male ; and Thomas Martin the elder was empowered to demise any part of the estates to trustees, for a term of years, to commence from his death, upon trust to raise 10,000 for the portion or portions of all and every and any of his child or children, other than an eldest or only son, such sum to be paid to or amongst such child or children,, in such shares, and at such times, and subject to and under such powers of revocation, conditions, provisoes, limitations, declarations and agreements, as, in the deed or deeds by which the power should be exercised, should be inserted and declared. By indentures of lease and release, of the 21at and 22d of September 1778, estates in. Surrey were settled to the same uses, and subject to a similar power; but they were to be auxiliary only to the other estates in raising the 10,000. In 1794 Thomas Martin the elder, having then living two children only, namely,, the Plaintiff, Judith Farmer, and the Defendant, Eleanor Martin, by an indenture, dated the 16th of July in that year, after reciting that he was desirous of providing portions for his two daughters, pursuant to the before-mentioned [503] powers, in exercise of those powers, demised the estates to George Martin for one thousand years, to be computed from the day of his decease, upon trust to raise 10,000 for the portions of his two daughters, and to pay the same to them, in equal shares, with interest at 4 per cent., from his decease; and he declared that the portions should, upon the execution of the indenture, become vested and transmissible interests in his two daughters ; provided that it should be lawful for him, by deed or will, to revoke or to vary the appointment by appointing more of the 10,000 to one than to the other of his daughters, or by appointing the same to them, or either of them, or to such other child or children as he might thereafter have, except an eldest or only son. In 1796 George Martin, the trustee of the term, died, having appointed the Defendant, the Eev. Joseph Martin, his executor. In 1804 Thomas Martin the elder, being desirous that the interest of his two daughters in a moiety of the 10,000 should become irrevocable, by an indenture, dated the 27th of March in that year, in pursuance of the power reserved by the deed of the 16th July 1794, absolutely and irrevocably appointed 5000, part of the 10,000, to his two daughters in equal shares, but such last-mentioned appointment was not to prevent his exercising the power reserved by the deed of July 1794 as to the remainder of the 10,000. In 1806 Thomas Martin the elder, being in embarrassed circumstances and having an illegitimate son, the Defendant, Thomas Martin the younger, it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lady Mary Topham v The Duke of Portland
...594); Carver v. Bwvles (2 Russ. & Myl. 301); Scroggx v. Scroggs (Amb. 272); Welksky v. Aforninglon ('2 Kay & J. 143); Fanner v. Martin (2 Sim. 502); Jackson v. Jackson (4 Bro. C. C. 462); Fry v. Capper (Kay, 163); Russell v. Jaekson (10 Hare, 204); Saauleman v. M'Kenzie (1 John. & Hem. 613)......
-
Topham v The Duke of Portland
...cases which combine both those defects, such as Aleyn v. Belchier (1 Eden, 132); Askham v. Barker (12 Beav. 499); Farmer v. Martin (2 Sim. 502); and Jackson v. Jackson (4 Bra. C. C. 462). In all these the vice was twofold : the property was diverted from the objects of the power, and either......
-
Askham v Barker
...known of it and had thought fit, might have effectually prevented, by setting the matter straight under a new appointment; Famwr v. Martin (2 Sim. 502); 1 Sugd. on Powers (p. 371). Mere suspicion of benefit to the father is not sufficient to invalidate the appointment; M'Queen v. Farqnhar (......
-
Askham v Barker
...11 Ves. 467; Akyn v. Belchier, 1 Eden, 132; Daubeny v. Cockburn, 1 Mer. 626; Palmer v. Whtder, 2 Ball & B. 18; Farmer v. Martin, 2 Simons, 502; Arnold v. Hardwick, 1 Simons, 343; Lee v. Fernie, 1 Bear. 483. E. in.-37 1154 SHALLCROSS V. WRIGHT U BBAV. B04. the power exclusively in favour of ......